The pro-gun arguments are probably the stupidest, most worthless, bullshit arguments a person can force out of their asshole and throw against a wall.

You really need to stop tricking yourself into thinking there is any reason behind having guns, or better yet, a reason for supporting gun ownership, other than people, most likely yourself specifically, liking guns. It's as simple as you liking guns and wanting to own them. It's a selfish desire like gambling, shopping for shit you don't need, doing drugs, cutting your wrists, getting a boob job, etc. It really only comes down to the desire of someone to own a device designed to inflict damage and end life, period. The power/feeling gained through ownership of a device that opens the possibility for you to blow something's head clean off if given the chance.

I had to vote no, because I don't support people owning guns, especially as a right. It's not because I care if people own guns, because I really don't care if they do, but on the other hand, I really don't care if people get shot to death or kill themselves either. I just can't say I support that. Also, I don't really think those two things (caring if/supporting people own guns and caring if/supporting people get shot) are separable. Guns aren't really made as limited, rare collectors items. Your Walmart 9mm isn't really a Babe Ruth signed baseball that you can get upset about if the kids take it to the sandlot. You would have to have some nerve to tell someone they couldn't use something for what it was designed to do, while at the same time supporting and/or encouraging the ownership of said item.

I think it's funny when people conveniently forget that, in general, guns are made to kill things, and in some instances, they are designed specifically for killing human beings, then start making arguments.

You can really start telling that people are on a needless search for justification when they bring up things like car, knife, etc. deaths. I need to start remembering that automatic weapons, that were made for killing, are statistically superior, so I can start driving my fucking tank to work and using my AK-47 for buttering my toast and cutting up fruits and vegetables. That way I can cut down on accidents.

The 'I need a gun because I might need, more like want, to use it' argument (commonly self-defense) is fine until you, again, go trying to needlessly justify it. When someone is trying to make an argument and support policies to prevent people from being shot, it's not, at all, good to argue for increasing the probability of, and/or opportunity for, people being shot. In that situation, just don't act like you have an argument, because you are just playing a wolf with a sheep's outfit half zipped up in the back. You could very well like the idea of being able to kill someone who comes into your house uninvited, being the superhero to the villain that threatens a Batman movie, or trying to overthrow the government and kill politicians that disagree with you, but using that to try to argue that you should have the right to own a gun is stupid. The solution to one idiot with a gun, will never be two idiots with guns. Concede the argument if you have to do so, but at least be honest with everyone and especially yourself.

You want guns, because you like guns. You don't think guns should be taken away, regulated, etc. because you fundamentally disagree with the idea of people in a society telling other people what they can and can't do. That, or you selfishly, hypocritically cherry-picked that fundamental position for guns. Probably the latter.

Pro-gun people have to keep in mind that they are in the same boat as any other right-wing, or religious, bullshit idea, and they need to stop acting like they have an explanation for why God exists and Jesus is him/his son. The majority of the people on the left are approaching the problem in the same way they approach all problems. They are sitting down as intelligent, rational, thinking individuals. When they do so on the issue of guns, they come to the conclusion that as intelligent, highly civilized, modern, rational beings, that their practical uses for guns are ranging from little to none. This could be ignoring how others feel, but it's not like all of them are for anything but ideologically limiting the ownership/usage of guns to the bare minimum. Very few of the anti-gun people want to, in reality, completely do away with the rights of average citizens to own guns. At least it's a lot less than you would assume given the polarization on the pro-gun side.

I really think the pro-gun group needs to just adopt the same approach as the rest of the camp and stop trying to use rationale and logic. God exists because faith, homosexuality and abortion should not be allowed in society because of God, other groups of people are inferior because they are/look different, and guns should be allowed because blowing someone's head clean off would make my day. Just keep it what it is.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

Number of rounds and rate of fire are important to self defense? Who are you defending against? The 1st Infantry? Who do you think is breaking into your house? You don't need to fire off rounds at the rate of an an advancing military to protect your home. Unless you are running a drug cartel out of your living room, this is just a ridiculous argument.

On Switzerland, I had to take a few minutes to do some quick research to see what you're talking about. You may want to look up a few things if you are going to continue to use that as the support for an argument. Switzerland had no standing army but they have a militia and every male ages 20 - 30 are in the militia, receive training and keep guns in their possession. Ammo, however, is in short supply. What I read was they give each person a sealed amount of ammo and they audit its use and possession pretty frequently. There are shooting ranges in Switzerland where you can rent the guns but all ammo must be fired on the premises. People are not walking off with bullets. So, unlike the US where you can order several thousand rounds of hollow point or armor piercing bullets with an internet connection and a credit card, you can't do that in Switzerland. The seem to have de facto gun control by limiting the ability of people to go on massive shooting sprees. I suppose that a member with militia ammo can unseal it and go on a shooting spree from time to time, but the facts are that there is not the same ability to use guns in Switzerland that exist in the US. If you have some contrary information on that, please forward on. Like I said, I just read this a few minutes ago so it may not be the end all, be all of Swiss gun laws.

Finally, regarding your comments on conceal and carry laws and crime rates, while gun advocates cling to those arguments as gospel, the evidence is still out on that. What is fact is that the more guns you have, the higher the crime and murder rates you have. That is pretty much undisputed. To claim that concealed weapons laws have had any positive impacts without considering all the other factors is a completely disingenuous argument. Especially when you factor in, again, the murder and violent crime rates in places with more guns vs. those with lunch. If I had to bet some money on this, I'd bet that the conceal and carry impacts are nothing more than a random correlation, and that assumes it holds up in all places.

Want to have real fun? Go compare the murder with a gun rates in the UK to the US. These are two very similar countries and, at least in my opinion, a very fair comparison. You'll find that the US has roughly 40 times the rate of homicide with a gun than the UK. 40 times. How do you possible account for that? And, the Brits are not making this up with murder by other means. They still don't come close to the US. In fact, there is no western industrial nation that comes anywhere close to the US when it comes to murder. Don't tell me that guns do not play a role in that.

Sticking with the UK, if you do even cursory research, you'll see it is a relatively violent country when it comes to crime. It is easily as bad as the US is in that regard. But, a lot fewer people are getting killed. Why? I suppose we can debate the "why" but I propose it is because they don't have nearly the amount of guns we do (and yet have a similar crime rate).

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

(14-08-2012 08:57 AM)TrulyX Wrote: The pro-gun arguments are probably the stupidest, most worthless, bullshit arguments a person can force out of their asshole and throw against a wall.

You really need to stop tricking yourself into thinking there is any reason behind having guns, or better yet, a reason for supporting gun ownership, other than people, most likely yourself specifically, liking guns. It's as simple as you liking guns and wanting to own them. It's a selfish desire like gambling, shopping for shit you don't need, doing drugs, cutting your wrists, getting a boob job, etc. It really only comes down to the desire of someone to own a device designed to inflict damage and end life, period. The power/feeling gained through ownership of a device that opens the possibility for you to blow something's head clean off if given the chance.

I had to vote no, because I don't support people owning guns, especially as a right. It's not because I care if people own guns, because I really don't care if they do, but on the other hand, I really don't care if people get shot to death or kill themselves either. I just can't say I support that. Also, I don't really think those two things (caring if/supporting people own guns and caring if/supporting people get shot) are separable. Guns aren't really made as limited, rare collectors items. Your Walmart 9mm isn't really a Babe Ruth signed baseball that you can get upset about if the kids take it to the sandlot. You would have to have some nerve to tell someone they couldn't use something for what it was designed to do, while at the same time supporting and/or encouraging the ownership of said item.

I think it's funny when people conveniently forget that, in general, guns are made to kill things, and in some instances, they are designed specifically for killing human beings, then start making arguments.

You can really start telling that people are on a needless search for justification when they bring up things like car, knife, etc. deaths. I need to start remembering that automatic weapons, that were made for killing, are statistically superior, so I can start driving my fucking tank to work and using my AK-47 for buttering my toast and cutting up fruits and vegetables. That way I can cut down on accidents.

The 'I need a gun because I might need, more like want, to use it' argument (commonly self-defense) is fine until you, again, go trying to needlessly justify it. When someone is trying to make an argument and support policies to prevent people from being shot, it's not, at all, good to argue for increasing the probability of, and/or opportunity for, people being shot. In that situation, just don't act like you have an argument, because you are just playing a wolf with a sheep's outfit half zipped up in the back. You could very well like the idea of being able to kill someone who comes into your house uninvited, being the superhero to the villain that threatens a Batman movie, or trying to overthrow the government and kill politicians that disagree with you, but using that to try to argue that you should have the right to own a gun is stupid. The solution to one idiot with a gun, will never be two idiots with guns. Concede the argument if you have to do so, but at least be honest with everyone and especially yourself.

You want guns, because you like guns. You don't think guns should be taken away, regulated, etc. because you fundamentally disagree with the idea of people in a society telling other people what they can and can't do. That, or you selfishly, hypocritically cherry-picked that fundamental position for guns. Probably the latter.

Pro-gun people have to keep in mind that they are in the same boat as any other right-wing, or religious, bullshit idea, and they need to stop acting like they have an explanation for why God exists and Jesus is him/his son. The majority of the people on the left are approaching the problem in the same way they approach all problems. They are sitting down as intelligent, rational, thinking individuals. When they do so on the issue of guns, they come to the conclusion that as intelligent, highly civilized, modern, rational beings, that their practical uses for guns are ranging from little to none. This could be ignoring how others feel, but it's not like all of them are for anything but ideologically limiting the ownership/usage of guns to the bare minimum. Very few of the anti-gun people want to, in reality, completely do away with the rights of average citizens to own guns. At least it's a lot less than you would assume given the polarization on the pro-gun side.

I really think the pro-gun group needs to just adopt the same approach as the rest of the camp and stop trying to use rationale and logic. God exists because faith, homosexuality and abortion should not be allowed in society because of God, other groups of people are inferior because they are/look different, and guns should be allowed because blowing someone's head clean off would make my day. Just keep it what it is.

Your diatribe is irrational for the very arguments you use to ascribe irrationality to those who support gun ownership.

Did you actually read any of the posts that give legitimate reasons for gun ownership?
We who live in rural areas have practical uses for firearms. They are tools.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(14-08-2012 09:15 AM)BnW Wrote: Number of rounds and rate of fire are important to self defense? Who are you defending against? The 1st Infantry? Who do you think is breaking into your house? You don't need to fire off rounds at the rate of an an advancing military to protect your home. Unless you are running a drug cartel out of your living room, this is just a ridiculous argument.

Military weapons are fully automatic; we're talking about semi-automatic hers, so your 'advancing military' allusion is just more scare mongering.
A semi-automatic pistol or a revolver is more effective for self defense than a single-shot, pump, bolt-action, lever-action. The time to a second or subsequent shot may be the difference between life and death.

When hunting, the first shot may not kill, so the quick second shot is important and humane. Here, a bolt, pump, or lever-action is usually effective enough.

(14-08-2012 09:15 AM)BnW Wrote: On Switzerland, I had to take a few minutes to do some quick research to see what you're talking about. You may want to look up a few things if you are going to continue to use that as the support for an argument. Switzerland had no standing army but they have a militia and every male ages 20 - 30 are in the militia, receive training and keep guns in their possession. Ammo, however, is in short supply. What I read was they give each person a sealed amount of ammo and they audit its use and possession pretty frequently. There are shooting ranges in Switzerland where you can rent the guns but all ammo must be fired on the premises. People are not walking off with bullets. So, unlike the US where you can order several thousand rounds of hollow point or armor piercing bullets with an internet connection and a credit card, you can't do that in Switzerland. The seem to have de facto gun control by limiting the ability of people to go on massive shooting sprees. I suppose that a member with militia ammo can unseal it and go on a shooting spree from time to time, but the facts are that there is not the same ability to use guns in Switzerland that exist in the US. If you have some contrary information on that, please forward on. Like I said, I just read this a few minutes ago so it may not be the end all, be all of Swiss gun laws.

The crazy Swiss mass murderer isn't going to be concerned about breaking the seal on the ammunition package. The fact is that, even though the Swiss have better guns and better training, they don't go out and shoot people. That says it's the society, not the guns.

(14-08-2012 09:15 AM)BnW Wrote: Finally, regarding your comments on conceal and carry laws and crime rates, while gun advocates cling to those arguments as gospel, the evidence is still out on that. What is fact is that the more guns you have, the higher the crime and murder rates you have. That is pretty much undisputed. To claim that concealed weapons laws have had any positive impacts without considering all the other factors is a completely disingenuous argument. Especially when you factor in, again, the murder and violent crime rates in places with more guns vs. those with lunch. If I had to bet some money on this, I'd bet that the conceal and carry impacts are nothing more than a random correlation, and that assumes it holds up in all places.

Like I said before, let's get our statistics. You can spin a theory about coincidence, but let's have facts.

(14-08-2012 09:15 AM)BnW Wrote: Want to have real fun? Go compare the murder with a gun rates in the UK to the US. These are two very similar countries and, at least in my opinion, a very fair comparison. You'll find that the US has roughly 40 times the rate of homicide with a gun than the UK. 40 times. How do you possible account for that? And, the Brits are not making this up with murder by other means. They still don't come close to the US. In fact, there is no western industrial nation that comes anywhere close to the US when it comes to murder. Don't tell me that guns do not play a role in that.

Sticking with the UK, if you do even cursory research, you'll see it is a relatively violent country when it comes to crime. It is easily as bad as the US is in that regard. But, a lot fewer people are getting killed. Why? I suppose we can debate the "why" but I propose it is because they don't have nearly the amount of guns we do (and yet have a similar crime rate).

I am quite convinced that guns play a role in the incidence and severity of violent crime, but they are not the sole or main cause of the violence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

I have no qualms about gun ownership but I do find some of the law's baffling. There should be nothing restricting a law abiding person from buying a weapon that fits within reasonable measures.

I am baffled with how easy it can be for people to buy a gun, and quickly. I don't get how people freak out as if it's against the constitution to put some restrictions on the way you can get guns. You have limits to the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment doesn't say you must have a hasty smooth way to get your arms. Yet the Gun shows are a cool scenario to get your weapons quickly.

I think waiting periods should be a whole lot longer, deeper, and perhaps have more safety level requirements.

As far as "assault Riffles" go, they have their purposes in situations like pest control. I know usually they consider that they already have further extensive checks on these just as they do if you want to buy and RPG. Maybe it is infringing, I don't know, but I think there ought to be more personal checks to see why a person would be buying these weapons. If they have practical pest control purposes it should be fine.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

Bottom line to the silly naysayers:
It's the same issue as those who don't care if Obama was born in Kenya.
You're not going to change the US Constitution. (Not saying you can't try).

The Second Amendment was not written to give people the right to keep guns for hunting and for home protection. It was written by folks who had just served in a grassroots militia that had defeated a tyrannical power.

The right to bear arms is a warning to any mother fuckers who want to take away our freedoms. (Looking at you, Patriot Act supporters).

The silly naysayers will whine that there weren't automatic weapons in 1789. No, but the 2nd Amendment makes no limitations on how many or what kinds of guns for a reason. They knew there's a difference between a bow and arrow and a musket with a bayonet, and they knew the difference between a blunderbuss and a pistol.

I don't own a gun because I cannot convince myself I'll never eat the barrel, but I am in full support of the right to own whatever personal gun you like. Controls have a place when it comes to limiting someone like Chas owning a Howitzer, but if we ever need to overthrow a tyrant, I don't want to hear you whiners say no one should have had an assault rifle in their attic.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness
~Izel

The following 2 users Like Erxomai's post:2 users Like Erxomai's postChas (14-08-2012), Bows and Arrows (23-04-2014)

(14-08-2012 04:50 PM)Erxomai Wrote: Bottom line to the silly naysayers:
It's the same issue as those who don't care if Obama was born in Kenya.
You're not going to change the US Constitution. (Not saying you can't try).

The Second Amendment was not written to give people the right to keep guns for hunting and for home protection. It was written by folks who had just served in a grassroots militia that had defeated a tyrannical power.

The right to bear arms is a warning to any mother fuckers who want to take away our freedoms. (Looking at you, Patriot Act supporters).

The silly naysayers will whine that there weren't automatic weapons in 1789. No, but the 2nd Amendment makes no limitations on how many or what kinds of guns for a reason. They knew there's a difference between a bow and arrow and a musket with a bayonet, and they knew the difference between a blunderbuss and a pistol.

I don't own a gun because I cannot convince myself I'll never eat the barrel, but I am in full support of the right to own whatever personal gun you like. Controls have a place when it comes to limiting someone like Chas owning a Howitzer, but if we ever need to overthrow a tyrant, I don't want to hear you whiners say no one should have had an assault rifle in their attic.

A person can buy an old howitzer in the U.S. you know? You can buy a howitzer, rpg, semi-auto shotgun, etc. They are listed as "destructive devices" and do require more restrict background checks and check offs to purchase legally. They have to be registered when getting these weapons; that goes along with them proving some reason to have such a weapon that will go along with promoting public safety.

Why is those laws not being attacked if there ought to be no restrictions on guns/arms. If those laws are perfectly acceptable, what would be harmful to add automatic/semi-automatic weapons to just require more extensive background checks and reasonable purchase checks?

The second amendment was also purposely given to the people because the hopeful plan was to not have a standing Army during non-waring times. The Bill of Rights in general as well as that amendment are to protect people from the Government first and foremost, but every rule is without a sole reason.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

You need to fix your poll... Shouldn't be multi-select, as I've voted for all of them for shits & giggles.

I'm in favor of stricter gun controls, though I'm realistic in that banning them won't happen and wouldn't solve the problem. Education, registration, etc would help a lot and wouldn't impose on anyone that has a legitimate reason to own one. If getting educated and registering it is too much of a bother (or you're paranoid enough about registration that you don't like it), guns aren't something I think you are mature enough to own.

Education would help, but it wouldn't be enough - we also would need better background checks and perhaps an interview process (one time) for gun purchases. Kinda to keep idiots like Walt Wawra, the Michigan cop scared of Canadians, from getting guns.